Adjusting your head-workings to become part of the labor force.
And it is difficult not to, since not working is reviled. We adhere so much value to work, that it is difficult to imagine any sort of post-work society.
I enjoy Jiddu Krishnamurti in its intensity, as I do any philosopher that touches upon subjectivity (Freud, Deleuze, Guattari, Virno, etc.) The morale of the working class is absolutely skewed, since it competes against itself in seeking the obtention of an artificial poll of goods.
Wether it is an oligarchy or not, I don't care, but it its clear that it is a rule/comfort of a few, wearing the clothes of a Democracy.
My point here, is that the only way to promote meaningful change, is by changing and by challenging static subjectivities, which they never are in any case.
I hold the belief that deconstruction is a beneficial act, but critique is not enough, and reconstruction, or the posing of alternatives is necessary. The market cannot regulate our thinking, since it is after all, cultural, and by consequence, artificial (i.e. manmade).
Still, you might be asking...Why should anyone adjust their heads in order to become part of the labour force? or to put it bluntly, why does anyone have to change the way they think to find a job?
Easy. And the University is a fertile ground in finding what stands as academic, and what stands for Industry.
My understanding of Academia, is the furthering of knowledge for clarity. Not Knowledge for the sake of Knowledge, but knowledge that helps us understand the workings of things. In this endeavour, you might want to be like, hey! Not only I want to understand how an Aspirin works, but I'd love to find alternative ways to produce them, so they have less secondary effects... Then you might think that becoming a biochemist its worthwhile, and that your vocation is to improve peoples lives.
Surely, any advancement in the production of drugs will be welcomed by the industry, but imagine for a moment that the scenario is different. What if most of the Aspirin consumers in the world, had to take them due to their long working hours? Then you realise that maybe, policy making may be better for you, or even becoming a politician, to make sure regulations on working ours are fair, etc.
Your endeavour is no longer based on any particular industry, but requires a wider view of the issue. Improving, or working for good, it is not the same as problem solving, which is what they thought me at school. It was nevertheless, always interested in the question itself.
For so, in our current job market, and specifically in the creative field, innovation stands for creative problem-solving. My contention here, is that we need to rework the questions.
Adjusting your head to the market, means you are happy to abide to what you are being asked to do, to engage uncritically. This might sound too grand, or arrogant, but when encircled by a disciplinary boundary, it sounds reasonable to dispose your expertise critically. This though, might come at the cost of producing conflicts of interest.
In my case, I have seen a lot of architecture practices that engage in the creation of objects, and by that I mean, marketable objects with the implications this arises. This means that the architectural labor force, not only has to produce material which is valid, but it needs to stand out amongst this ocean of validity. This is not only problem solving, but competition, and many offices have jumped in the vertiginous race to attract clientele, without questioning their programs or consequences of their schemes. Easy.
For becoming a successful architect nowadays, it takes a lot of expertise, not only architectural, which we might think of as the production of designs, or designs-to-build, but promotional, technological, and social. This proves that architecture doesn't live in a vacuum, and it is not, therefore autonomous as a practice, or discipline. This I know is contentious, but I believe to be true.
If your interest as a creative, is to problem solve creatively, I think this is an ambitions enough proposal. But I'd like to ask you, as well, whether you'd be up for the challenge, of not only producing solutions, but also challenging the way in which the very society-machine formulates these sets of questions, implements them, and perpetuates them. I encourage any reader to engage in the production of (critical) alternatives to the existing modes of architectural conception, which I believe to be, in their majority, outdated, and with a still, Feudal-sort-of-mind.
I hope this does't sound too pretentious, or fallacious. I will try to develop this ideas further in the future, hopefully by practice as well, which is my ultimate goal, for words have no meaning when they only glow as dark pixels on your screen, if they do not after all, alter your brain-neuron-structure.
All in All,
xoxoxoox
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario